Hi, I got a "general purpose" RFE for my self-petitioned premium processed EB-1A I-140 at TSC and the case went through after I replied to it (all my stuff self-prepared; package received by TSC on 04/19 and approved 04/25). I'm writing this up to share some experience which hopefully will be useful for other people. If you want to see my credentials and the details of the RFE, see http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=241459
I want to thank many friends here who have shared their experience and insights, including good_y, tipotodo, ioananv, etc. (Not sure if these friends are still active here). In particular, tipotodo sent me a sample reference letter, and ioananv provided some evidences that I used directly in my reply to RFE (partly because her husband and I are in the same field). I suggest you look up their posts as well if you find what I write useful (you can search by user name).
Summary of my original petition: 3 criteria claimed, publications, contributions, judge of others' work.
Summary of RFE: pretty much everything in the EB-1A criteria, plus "further evidence that you plan to continue work in your field." It's clear to me that the adjudicator didn't read my submission carefully (or didn't read it at all) and just pulled out some template file on his hard drive and sent it to me.
Summary of my reply: some people suggested that I should reply to as many points raised in the RFE letter as possible. Which might make sense. I stuck to what's in my original petition, since I believe making many shaky claims without strong evidence will only hurt. It's probably better to make strong arguments for enough points (in my opinion). Only criterion I added is "published material about the petitioner," since somebody called my work "conceptually rather beautiful" in his paper. I don't know if the adjudicator bought it though.
1. Further evidence for publications: I used the average numbers of publications and citations of US research university faculty which ioananv dug out, and compared these to mine and claim that I'm "in the very top of my field" because my numbers are higher than the averages of those of top quarter US research university faculty. I even drew a table in my letter where all relevant info is compared side by side. One thing I want to point out is that the adjudicators love "quantitative evidence," this is why they're always asking how many people competed for the prize you won, how many copies are printed for the publication that writes about you, etc. One reason for this is numbers are objective, the other reason is that the adjudicators are no experts in your field and numbers are the easiest for them to understand and digest in assessing your credentials and are thus considered most convincing by them. So use quantitative evidence to your advantage whenever possible (hide those to your disadvantage of course - if you're using "membership" criterion and there're tens of thousands of members in the society with your status you probably will be better off not mentioning it). The other thing I used for "publications" is I found a report that evaluates the journals in my field which writes about one journal I published in like this: "... publishes only the most significant and timely research in ..." I then argued "Since only "the most significant" research is published, the very fact that I publish in this journals proves the major significance of my research" (they always ask you to prove that your publications, achievements, contributions etc are "of major significance"). This is subjective evidence, but it's in an authoritative report and thus considered probative (I think).
2. Further evidence for contributions: I got 3 more reference letters, two from new independent experts and 1 from a professor who already testified for me. They want me to explain why my contributions are "of major significance," and I made 3 arguments: my research has changed the community's understanding of certain issues; I've been a pioneer in my field by doing the world's earliest research on some topics; other people rely heavily on my results. The additional reference letters were written to support these points. Also argued "since many people cited my papers they really need me!" sth like that. Some people believe letters of recommendations from big names carry more weight, but my experience is that letters from those who know your work well (such as authors who cited your papers and people who invited you to give talks) are more valuable because they can explain why it's important. After all, most likely the adjudicator never heard about those big names in your field. And I've seen numerous rejection letter saying "the petitioner isn't as established as his recommender who's really at the top of his field."
3. Further evidence for "judging the work of others." Obtained a letter from the editor of a journals I referee for. Didn't really say much, though it did mention that they pick referees from those "whose expertise have been established by a strong publication record and whose papers are cited frequently." Also stated the number of reviews I wrote. Don't know if this helped (in my original petition I've attached many letters from editors of a few journals requesting me to review.)
4. Further evidence that I plan to continue work in my field: obtained an employment verification letter from my department chair. It merely stated that I've been employment by the dept since some time ago. No mentioning of future employment and how long present employment will last. Also attached a latest paystub. Don't know if these things really helped.
Some tips:
1. If you got an RFE and you feel the adjudicator didn't read your submission at all after reading the RFE, I think that's exactly what happened. Like it or not, what's important to you is just another ordinary case from a customer they have no reason to give special care to. So if you're expecting an RFE it's good to prepare early for it, you can even reserve some evidence from your original petition for possible use in RFE (this is not what I did though).
2. Many people are always asking if certain evidence (such as sigma-xi membership) would help. Best way to find your answer is to read the AAO decisions available on USCIS' website rather than listen to what people say here. Simply because they're the one who has the authority to say what counts and what doesn't. And you'll see many of the evidences asked here specifically addressed. Some believe you should include as much evidence as possible, even if it's discounted it shouldn't hurt. I don't feel the same way. If you have enough strong points to push your case through, maybe any underweight evidence would indeed simply be ignored. HOwever if your case is marginal and the adjudicators are looking for execuses to reject you, any shaky evidence you submitted will become their favorite sword (well this is how I feel after reading AAO decisions; your opinion or "the truth" might be different).
3. If you know a little about law you'll know that previous court decisions carry enormous weight. What this means is that you should study some of the cases and used what's in it to your advantage when you can. Most adjudicators are familiar with certain cases, such as Matter of Kabati, etc. In my case, I'm too lazy to study those "matters," but I read the part concerning EB-1A in the adjudicator's field manual (available on USCIS' website), and cited some of it explaining what is considered "probative evidence" in my letter. It basically goes like this: look, the above is what was specifically mentioned in the adjudicator's field manual as "probative evidence," and I've presented every type of such evidence, then how can you not buy my argument? I think this worked for me, but it's a little risky too, because it could annoy the adjudicator since it's clear I was trying to manipulate him.
4. It's very important to write a good cover letter, of course. "Good" means well organized, not how long it is. One million pieces of evidence amounts to very little if your reader can't follow the logic in your argument. I even had a table of content (though the letter is only 16 pages long). Also, present your strongest argument and evidence at the very beginning of your letter. Why? When I borrow a book from the library I can seldomly read beyond page 10. I always feel nobody can write about my research and other stuff better than myself because nobody knows (and cares about) these things better than myself, and my scientific paper writing experience is actually very useful (admittedly there're major differnces between scientific writing and legal writing but both emphasize logic and reasoning and that's what's matters here). Others feel a lwayer can write better because of his experience (actually it's usually the lawyer's assistant), which can very well be true, but I won't recommend a lawyer who won't let you see what he wrote before (and after) he sends it out (I know somebody whose lawyer sent him a cover letter of somebody else). Most people on this board have years of experience in writing scientific papers, there's really little reason to believe a lawyer can write about your scientific work and achievement better than you do.
5. You can use the same evidence for multiple criteria. For instance, according to the adjudicator's manual, your reviewing papers can support both your judging work of others and your major contributions. Most people probably know this.
All right this is all I can think of. This takes me 3 hours to write and I hope people find it useful. I'm sorry I can't share my letter sent to USCIS, my computer crashed a couple of times and it doesn't seem I can retrieve the data from my old malfunctioning hard drive. But just from above you can get a clear idea how I wrote it and what arguments I made. You should notice though, what worked for me might not work for you, and obviously there's no guarantee that good things will happen even if you follow my experience and suggestions.
Best luck to all,
I want to thank many friends here who have shared their experience and insights, including good_y, tipotodo, ioananv, etc. (Not sure if these friends are still active here). In particular, tipotodo sent me a sample reference letter, and ioananv provided some evidences that I used directly in my reply to RFE (partly because her husband and I are in the same field). I suggest you look up their posts as well if you find what I write useful (you can search by user name).
Summary of my original petition: 3 criteria claimed, publications, contributions, judge of others' work.
Summary of RFE: pretty much everything in the EB-1A criteria, plus "further evidence that you plan to continue work in your field." It's clear to me that the adjudicator didn't read my submission carefully (or didn't read it at all) and just pulled out some template file on his hard drive and sent it to me.
Summary of my reply: some people suggested that I should reply to as many points raised in the RFE letter as possible. Which might make sense. I stuck to what's in my original petition, since I believe making many shaky claims without strong evidence will only hurt. It's probably better to make strong arguments for enough points (in my opinion). Only criterion I added is "published material about the petitioner," since somebody called my work "conceptually rather beautiful" in his paper. I don't know if the adjudicator bought it though.
1. Further evidence for publications: I used the average numbers of publications and citations of US research university faculty which ioananv dug out, and compared these to mine and claim that I'm "in the very top of my field" because my numbers are higher than the averages of those of top quarter US research university faculty. I even drew a table in my letter where all relevant info is compared side by side. One thing I want to point out is that the adjudicators love "quantitative evidence," this is why they're always asking how many people competed for the prize you won, how many copies are printed for the publication that writes about you, etc. One reason for this is numbers are objective, the other reason is that the adjudicators are no experts in your field and numbers are the easiest for them to understand and digest in assessing your credentials and are thus considered most convincing by them. So use quantitative evidence to your advantage whenever possible (hide those to your disadvantage of course - if you're using "membership" criterion and there're tens of thousands of members in the society with your status you probably will be better off not mentioning it). The other thing I used for "publications" is I found a report that evaluates the journals in my field which writes about one journal I published in like this: "... publishes only the most significant and timely research in ..." I then argued "Since only "the most significant" research is published, the very fact that I publish in this journals proves the major significance of my research" (they always ask you to prove that your publications, achievements, contributions etc are "of major significance"). This is subjective evidence, but it's in an authoritative report and thus considered probative (I think).
2. Further evidence for contributions: I got 3 more reference letters, two from new independent experts and 1 from a professor who already testified for me. They want me to explain why my contributions are "of major significance," and I made 3 arguments: my research has changed the community's understanding of certain issues; I've been a pioneer in my field by doing the world's earliest research on some topics; other people rely heavily on my results. The additional reference letters were written to support these points. Also argued "since many people cited my papers they really need me!" sth like that. Some people believe letters of recommendations from big names carry more weight, but my experience is that letters from those who know your work well (such as authors who cited your papers and people who invited you to give talks) are more valuable because they can explain why it's important. After all, most likely the adjudicator never heard about those big names in your field. And I've seen numerous rejection letter saying "the petitioner isn't as established as his recommender who's really at the top of his field."
3. Further evidence for "judging the work of others." Obtained a letter from the editor of a journals I referee for. Didn't really say much, though it did mention that they pick referees from those "whose expertise have been established by a strong publication record and whose papers are cited frequently." Also stated the number of reviews I wrote. Don't know if this helped (in my original petition I've attached many letters from editors of a few journals requesting me to review.)
4. Further evidence that I plan to continue work in my field: obtained an employment verification letter from my department chair. It merely stated that I've been employment by the dept since some time ago. No mentioning of future employment and how long present employment will last. Also attached a latest paystub. Don't know if these things really helped.
Some tips:
1. If you got an RFE and you feel the adjudicator didn't read your submission at all after reading the RFE, I think that's exactly what happened. Like it or not, what's important to you is just another ordinary case from a customer they have no reason to give special care to. So if you're expecting an RFE it's good to prepare early for it, you can even reserve some evidence from your original petition for possible use in RFE (this is not what I did though).
2. Many people are always asking if certain evidence (such as sigma-xi membership) would help. Best way to find your answer is to read the AAO decisions available on USCIS' website rather than listen to what people say here. Simply because they're the one who has the authority to say what counts and what doesn't. And you'll see many of the evidences asked here specifically addressed. Some believe you should include as much evidence as possible, even if it's discounted it shouldn't hurt. I don't feel the same way. If you have enough strong points to push your case through, maybe any underweight evidence would indeed simply be ignored. HOwever if your case is marginal and the adjudicators are looking for execuses to reject you, any shaky evidence you submitted will become their favorite sword (well this is how I feel after reading AAO decisions; your opinion or "the truth" might be different).
3. If you know a little about law you'll know that previous court decisions carry enormous weight. What this means is that you should study some of the cases and used what's in it to your advantage when you can. Most adjudicators are familiar with certain cases, such as Matter of Kabati, etc. In my case, I'm too lazy to study those "matters," but I read the part concerning EB-1A in the adjudicator's field manual (available on USCIS' website), and cited some of it explaining what is considered "probative evidence" in my letter. It basically goes like this: look, the above is what was specifically mentioned in the adjudicator's field manual as "probative evidence," and I've presented every type of such evidence, then how can you not buy my argument? I think this worked for me, but it's a little risky too, because it could annoy the adjudicator since it's clear I was trying to manipulate him.
4. It's very important to write a good cover letter, of course. "Good" means well organized, not how long it is. One million pieces of evidence amounts to very little if your reader can't follow the logic in your argument. I even had a table of content (though the letter is only 16 pages long). Also, present your strongest argument and evidence at the very beginning of your letter. Why? When I borrow a book from the library I can seldomly read beyond page 10. I always feel nobody can write about my research and other stuff better than myself because nobody knows (and cares about) these things better than myself, and my scientific paper writing experience is actually very useful (admittedly there're major differnces between scientific writing and legal writing but both emphasize logic and reasoning and that's what's matters here). Others feel a lwayer can write better because of his experience (actually it's usually the lawyer's assistant), which can very well be true, but I won't recommend a lawyer who won't let you see what he wrote before (and after) he sends it out (I know somebody whose lawyer sent him a cover letter of somebody else). Most people on this board have years of experience in writing scientific papers, there's really little reason to believe a lawyer can write about your scientific work and achievement better than you do.
5. You can use the same evidence for multiple criteria. For instance, according to the adjudicator's manual, your reviewing papers can support both your judging work of others and your major contributions. Most people probably know this.
All right this is all I can think of. This takes me 3 hours to write and I hope people find it useful. I'm sorry I can't share my letter sent to USCIS, my computer crashed a couple of times and it doesn't seem I can retrieve the data from my old malfunctioning hard drive. But just from above you can get a clear idea how I wrote it and what arguments I made. You should notice though, what worked for me might not work for you, and obviously there's no guarantee that good things will happen even if you follow my experience and suggestions.
Best luck to all,
)